The idea that maximum available resources refer to real resources in the economy is not new in human rights discourse. Alston and Quinn (1987) demonstrate that the predominant view has always been that availability of resources cannot be analyzed by looking only at government expenditures. During the drafting of the lnternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the view was offered that resources refer to 'the real resources of the country and not to budgetary appropriations." Roberston (1994) argues that the Limburg Principles on the lmplementation of the lnternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which requires States to ensure core obligations regardless of the level of economic development, implies "an obligation for the state to intrude without limit into both private and state resources" to meet minimum essential levels of human rights. lt also assumes "that every state possesses sutficient resources for subsistence purposes if they define resources broadly enough and are suffrciently aggressive in resource acquisition." The concept of "fiscal space" has been used to denote the maximum resources available to government for the realization of rights. The fiscal space can be thought of as space in the Cartesian plane bounded by four points: expenditure reprioritization and efficiency, domestic resource mobilization through taxation and other revenue sources, foreign assistance, and delicit financing. (Roy et al,2O07J Each point represents a set of policy options by which the government can expand or contract the total fiscal space. For example, for a given budget, more resources can be devoted to the realization of human rights by rearranging spending priorities or improving the efficiency of spending. The government may also add to the available resources by raising the rate of taxation or improving the collection of taxes. lt may further expand the fiscal space by appealing for more foreign aid. Finally, the government may decide to spend more than its revenues and finance the deficit by borrowing from domestic and foreign sources. ln principle, deficit financing includes the option to borrow from the Central Bank, either in the local or foreign currency. Balakrishnan et al (2011) add a fifth point, monetary policy and central bank policies. These policies influence the interest rate, exchange rates, foreign exchange reserves, reserves in the banking sector, and the regulation of the banking sector. They add or subtract to the resources available through their impact on the level of employment and the utilization of productive resources. A more restrictive concept of fiscal space highlights the role of the public debt. The Development Committee of the joint WB-IMF Board on Fiscal Policy and Growth (2006) defined fiscal space as "the gap between the current level of expenditures and the maximum level of expenditures a government can undertake without impairing its solvency." The same report states that an expansion of public expenditures is only desirable when it does not compromise "macroeconomic stability," or more to the point, "short-term macroeconomic stability." Peter Heller (2005), former Deputy Director of the IMF Fiscal Affairs Department, otfers a similar view: fiscal space is "the availability of budgetary room that allows a government to provide resources for a desired purpose without any prejudice to the sustainability of a government's financial position." (Roy et al,2OO7) ln this view, fiscal space and the availability of resources are constrained by the government's financial position or solvency position. lt highlights the issue of public and external "debt sustainability." There is now a growing recognition that debt sustainability analysis (DSA) as championed by multilateral lending agencies led by the World Bank and the lnternational Monetary Fund has doubtful theoretical basis and that, in practice, it is essentially arbitrary and highly unreliable in the context of highly unstable developing economies. More important, DSA ignores the longterm growth impact of borrowing and instead emphasizes the short-term risks of borrowing, 27